Adapted for bullying from
Bronfrenbrenner (1994) by Hong +
Espelage (2012)
Microsystem = pattern of activities/roles/interpersonal
relationships experienced by a child in a particular
setting where they are directly involved (e.g. home,
classroom, playground)
Mesosystem = relationship between 2 or more settings in which
the child actively participates
Exosystem = setting where child is not directly
involved, but it affects/is affected by settings
that do directly involve the child. E.g.
neighbourhood environment, local authority's
policy on bullying, exposure to violence in
media...
Macrosystem = influence of
cultural/subcultural mores and
belief-systems.
Chronosystem =
consistency/change
of the child and their
environment over
time
Tells us risk factors for different settings,
with implications for the importance of
assessing all systems and intervention at
multiple levels
Payne + Gottfriedson
(2004) found lower
levels of bullying
associated with school
level factors
Teacher discussing bullying with pupils
Teachers recognising bullying behaviour and
actually intervening in bullying incidents
Teachers showing interest in stopping bullying
Pupil cooperativeness
These factors also
associated with
more negative pupil
attitudes towards
bullying
Sociocognitive Deficit Theories
Social information processing model (Crick & Dodge, 1994)
6 stages for how social cues are
attended to, evaluated,
reacted to, etc.
Skillful processing = social competance,
biased processing = aggression and
social problems (Crick & Dodge, 1996;
Zelli et al, 1999)
Bullies have biased social information processing - attending
preferentially to hostile cues, coding less neutral cues, selecting more
instrumental goals over relational goals, evaluating aggressive responses
more favourably...
BUT not all bullies seem to be socially incompetent, some seem to be skilled manipulators
Shakoor et al (2012): longitudinal twin study. Poor Theory
of Mind age 5 predicted victim/bully-victim status, but
proactive bullies had very strong ToM
Proactive bullies socially
competent but lacking in empathy
+ instrumental goals (Arsenio +
Lemerise, 2001)
Viding et al (2009): 11-13yo self-reports
of callous unemotional (CU) traits and
psychopathology, peer reports of
direct/indirect bullying. Higher CU =
increased direct bullying. CU + conduct
problems = high risk for engaging in both
types of bullying.
Family influence
Social learning theory: aggression is
learnt through modelling +
reinforcement, early experience
particularly influential.
Olweus (1994) + Bowes et al (1994)
High levels of physical aggression and
emotional hostility between parents of bullies
and their children
These parents often do not set limits to their child's
aggression, so it is often successful in achieving the child's
goals
Parenting style of victims is
overprotective and overinvolved
Schwartz et al (1997): longitudinal study. Parental
behaviour = instrumental in the development of
bullying behaviour in some children.